Income Inequality Has Fallen... Let's Hope It Rises Againhttp://www.businessinsider.com/income-inequality-has-fallen-2009-9/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:32:11 -0400Vincent Fernandohttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ac3adf725d09f60225625cfredWed, 30 Sep 2009 15:13:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ac3adf725d09f60225625cf
[Font] <a href=http://www.etopbags.com/valentino-c-162.html>Valentino handbags</a> carved in fine print is very clear, more fonts. LouisVitton the majority of products are marked with "MadeinFrance" or "MadeinSpain", even "MadeinU.SA".<a href=http://www.etopbags.com/valentino-c-162.html>Valentino replica handbags</a> And engraved in the font LouisVitton leave very clear, but high and large fonts,timberland, the letters are narrower separation.
[ID] <a href=http://www.etopbags.com/valentino-c-162.html>replica Valentino handbags</a> products are each engraved with the numbers clearly. And many of them do not leave LouisVitton number.
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aac45e26623a60276597bfbAri BlockSat, 12 Sep 2009 21:07:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aac45e26623a60276597bfb
Whores and Assassins have got it right they have a simple model, you pay they give you the goods.
There is a fix and simple price for their service depending on the service level you would like.
The key point being simplicity, could we say the same thing about the government ?
Both the government and whores expect you to pay and will send thugs if you don't.
However whores unlike the government have clear pricing, and a customer oriented service.
And you get what you pay for!
So lets replace the government with a bunch of whores can only improve the situation in my opinionhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa95dfda1067e783a9c31dccfamanThu, 10 Sep 2009 16:13:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa95dfda1067e783a9c31dc
But, wait til the bailout and guaranty funds get reflected on the blance sheets of the top 1%, then the income flows through. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa954390becc42604ca3f2bGlassHammerThu, 10 Sep 2009 15:32:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa954390becc42604ca3f2b
Becky
"I see the leveling of the playing field actually dampening future living standards. I guess if you want to call it progress or progressive, I just don't see it. I see it as regressive in nature."
Well thats basically what I and others are saying. We as a nation will need to get used to a far lower standard of living whether we want it or not. Truth is, all the nice things sold to the middle class that may have made us happy are things we probably couldn't have bought without credit.
There is no denying the standard of living for every member of this nation was artifically propped up by easy credit and we bought well beyond our means. Just like we had a period of excessive spending so must the tide turn in the opposite direction.
I reiterate again that as a nation our income has not increased over the past decade which meant buying the nice things we cling to only came from credit (after all its not free). FYI 80% of Americans make less than $40,000 a year.
Now lowering the standard of living is regressive but it is required and putting it off has placed us in the position we are now. You can't build a growing economy absent consumer demand and you can't grow consumer demand if income doesn't grow. Income doesn't grow if jobs are in a decline. I doubt anyone could seriously tell me a single industry capable of spurring millions of jobs which is what we would need.
The alternative would be to prop up the consumer via government capital injection and I shutter to think what that would do to our national debt.
Lowering the standard of living is not a necessary evil its just necessary.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa94a88029d42450dbd8f1dBeckyThu, 10 Sep 2009 14:50:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa94a88029d42450dbd8f1d
As someone who has worked with people building new houses over the last 20 years, I would agree with the author. I am a lower middle class person who is very comfortable with both my socio economic status as well as many of my well heeled (and some not so well heeled) clients.
When I go to the trade shows that exhibit new products for homes, the items that are new are generally expensive when they first come out, then become more affordable after a few years. Who does anyone think buys the latest, greatest when it is new to the market? It is not the middle class, yet they eventually benefit. Stainless steel appliances, tall ceilings,moldings, baths for the kids, etc. are becoming (until recently) well within reach of middle income families. I don't see too much of that today. Houses are getting smaller, and more conservative in design.
If we keep going like we are, eventually we will all be buying the bulk of our consumer products at places like Walmart, which irregardless of being the biggest, is not the best. The ability to shop a large variety of products will be reduced, and like the president said, they playing field will then be level. I can see going back to several choices of products (would you like an avocado green stove, or a harvest gold one).
I see the leveling of the playing field actually dampening future living standards. I guess if you want to call it progress or progressive, I just don't see it. I see it as regressive in nature.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa92b8b5a4a6e6229e82727McCain=WW3Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa92b8b5a4a6e6229e82727
+100 @YarrowtheJayman.
Vincent, this really is the most exasperating thing I have heard in a LONG time. Are you freaking kidding? Please tell me you're a shill, and don't really believe this stuff you're saying. Maybe in that "aspirational way" that that CNBC shmoe asked some fraudster a while back: "Uhm, [blush], how does it feel to be a billionaire?"
Trickle-down, if it ever worked, was thoroughly killed by Globalization and outsourcing. Poof. Gone.
Without the consumer credit bubble, we would have had near ZERO growth, which is reflected in stagnant/slightly declining (in real terms) wages for most.
Actually, scratch that, given the gov't fudging of true inflation numbers, which were probably much closer to 10% / year than 3% / year the last 5 years or so, real incomes went down significantly for most people. Which has hollowed out your U.S. consumer base, maybe beyond repair.
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa9238016b2434936711948Joe DonutThu, 10 Sep 2009 12:04:16 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa9238016b2434936711948
Vincent Fernando wrote:
> Hoping for the top to be more successful doesn't mean the middle class need to
> become more poor.
In theory, no, it doesn't But that's exactly how it has happened since the (very) early 1980's. In the U.S. the "gains" of the few have come at the expense of the remainder of society. Have you missed the last ten to twenty years of data portraying distribution of income and wealth and how those numbers have tilted so favorably towards the so few?
One of the results of this is a generation or perhaps two of "ethikul biddnesmen", that see this trend as normal, the natural and sometimes only way to profit. There isn't any long-term future in such a society because it's unsustainable.
In many respects the U.S. has eviscerated itself by allowing this lopsided distribution and sadly shows no signs of stopping, let alone even recognizing its pursuit.
Adam Smith wept.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa919f50b80d14353747e44GlassHammerThu, 10 Sep 2009 11:23:33 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa919f50b80d14353747e44
@yep
Thanks for the information. This was a lead into how much money remains out of the market if hoarded by the top 5%.
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa90f7da791d8387bb17b61yepThu, 10 Sep 2009 10:38:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa90f7da791d8387bb17b61
@Glasshammer - as a member of the top 5% (and not a small biz owner) living in the Northeast where a disproportionate share of the top 1% has jacked up the cost of living - I can say from my experience my savings rate is not as much as it should be! But this is from 2000 and is only by quintile, NOT limited to the top 1% which is a huge difference.
SAVINGS RATE BY INCOME CLASS
------------------------------------------
Income class Savings Rate 2000
------------------------------------------
Highest quintile -2.1
Fourth quintile 2.6
Middle quintile 2.9
Second quintile 7.4
Lowest quintile 7.1
------------------------------------------ http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa90cd7d6ab664963087bf2GlasssHammerThu, 10 Sep 2009 10:27:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa90cd7d6ab664963087bf2
@yep
Thanks.
Can anyone dig up the savings rate of the top 5%?
I am trying to dig that up but haven't had any luck.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa909cb4d60aa520c1824c7yepThu, 10 Sep 2009 10:14:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa909cb4d60aa520c1824c7
T@Glasshammer - you're right - this whole small business owners dominate the top 1 % of income nonsense has to stop. There's no evidence to back that up. Rhode Island's unemployment rate is so high because it was the state most dependent on small business for jobs. Small business owners are always more vulnerable than employees of larger companies.
Further, Vin, spikes in income inequality have always signalled an upcoming economic disaster - (see 2007 and 1928). So no, we're actually not better off if there's a spike in income in equality. The top 1% is better off. Give me a friggin break.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8fff51bd8183a5bcce1d8GlassHammerThu, 10 Sep 2009 09:32:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8fff51bd8183a5bcce1d8
Vincent,
"wealthy frequently own their own companies... which hire people"
"Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 64 percent (or 14.5 million) of the 22.5 million net new jobs (gains minus losses) between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008."
US SBA
"A male small-business owners' average salary falls between $50,000 and $100,000 per year."
2009 PayScale survey
Its small business owners who employ the most Americans and on average they make far less then the Top 5%.
If the top 5% has such wealth and does not spend it, what amount is now out of play? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8ffc1e426dd15053f839fmacstibsThu, 10 Sep 2009 09:31:44 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8ffc1e426dd15053f839f
"Also, income inequality generally expands during economic upturns, since top-earners usually have "high-beta" incomes that rise and fall in an exaggerated fashion relative to the economy's health.
Thus, as odd as it may sound, we should actually hope that income inequality starts to widen again, since it would likely be the result of an economic recovery."
This is potentially the dumbest thing I've read all week... maybe even all month. And I'm in the top 5%.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8f86ab72ce546727c81d4TEThu, 10 Sep 2009 09:00:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8f86ab72ce546727c81d4
Nothing wrong with rising incomes, as long as everyone is rising.
This of course, has been the problem. Top incomes rising and everyone else is stagnate or declining in real terms.
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8f682d383d02742473524Vincent FernandoThu, 10 Sep 2009 08:52:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8f682d383d02742473524
Yarrow: Come on, you're exaggerating big time. this view isn't evil.
Hoping for the top to be more successful doesn't mean the middle class need to become more poor. The gap fell recently because the rich lost income, while the middle class held their ground (actually, the WSJ data shows them getting slightly better). There's no mysticism to the simple fact that the wealthy frequently own their own companies... which hire people. Trust me, you want more of these people around, not less.
See, income inequality isn't bad if it expands because the most successful are becoming more so. It's only bad if it happens because middle class incomes are falling. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8f35a649f8e41595e337cmobeer4donThu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8f35a649f8e41595e337c
Why is the top 1% line missing from the second graph?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8ef2fb6f99c1c348c18cfYarrowtheJaymanThu, 10 Sep 2009 08:21:02 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4aa8ef2fb6f99c1c348c18cf
Oh, okay Vin. Tonight when I kneel down with my children to help them say their nightly prayers we'll implore God to make the rich richer because in some magical-mystical way this makes us all much richer.
Vin: the Joseph Geobbels for the upper uber elites.